[Azure]

Originally Posted by photon

So (for example) some people suggest to buy local and/or organic food (I'm not saying that's valid or right in every circumstance, it's just an example). The additional cost of buying organic now has to be compared to the future increase in food prices (if any).

Local or organic food tends to be a lot more expensive. Obviously if someone can find money in their budget they should absolutely buy locally grown food, but what about those people that can't afford it? At the end of the day, making sure the bills are paid becomes a priority over paying more for locally grown produce. And asking those people to start paying more for food, when they can get by paying less is rather ridiculous. Of course somehow I think Tinordi thinks they should still find a way.

There's tons of choices that an individual can make that helps that would make a huge difference if done in significant numbers, but I'm a pessimist that way and most people will just do what is easiest/cheapest/fastest.

Obviously simple things like heating/cooling with a brain, recycling, not leaving the lights on, etc, etc....these are all good choices. But at the end of the day how much difference do they make compared to the big coal plant down the road generating electricity?

So that's why I'm not necessarily against things like only having CFLs/LED lights available, or goverment standards for fuel economy (so instead of going from 200hp to 300hp in a sedan in 10 years maybe it stays at 200hp but goes from 10 to 7L/100km).

Again, these are sensible solutions. Because the cost of lighting your home with LEDs if rather minimal, more people will go for it. With time, LEDs will become more and more popular. I know a few companies who are building additions to their current building and they are considering using LEDs. Despite the additional cost, it pays off in the end. In the future, the price of LEDs will come down.

Pushing for more nuclear or retrofitting coal with NG would be a big step too.

The US had the lowest amount of C02 emissions in 20 years because of the cheap price of NG. Why? Because the private sector came up with a way to make all those reserves easily accessible. It didn't cost taxpayers billions in MORE taxes, nor did it stunt the growth of the economy or make someone lose their job. Hell, it increased growth. This is why so many people are skeptical when people like Tinordi jump on their soapbox and tell everyone they're screwed unless they agree with his smug, arrogant opinion....and CHANGE right now. Which is pretty funny because the only CHANGE Tinordi has talked about is a carbon tax. Not more nuclear, not better fuel emissions, more no-till farming, locally grown produce, cleaner burning coal plants, cleaner burning NG plants, MORE NG plants, LESS coal plants, MORE companies like Tesla, more wind power, more solar power, more investment into renewable energy like wind, hydro and solar to make them more efficient, stricter reclamation regulations in the oil sands, new ways for sewage disposal, continuous push to reduce GHG emissions from oil sands operations, cleaner burning fuel....and I could go on and on and on.

But no, its just agree with my carbon tax or we'll all die soon.

Hell, if you JUST want to focus on ONE thing, conventional tilling has, according to Wikipedia, led to the release of 78 billion metric tonnes of carbon that was trapped in the soil.

A bigger focus on no-till farming would make a HUGE difference RIGHT now. And the cost? It can actually benefit the farmer. But hey. CARBON TAX!!@!#!@#!

So excuse me if I take recommendations from people like Tinordi with a HUGE grain of salt. People will never believe the problem is as serious as HE says it is because there is absolutely no scientific evidence that proves it to 100% certainty. And on top of that, the common person in North America cannot make a difference, regardless of what they do. At this point, considering the situation in China(smog so bad they had to shut down coal plants)....regardless of what happens in NA, it won't make much of a difference.

That being said I do agree with most of the solutions you proposed and would find a way to push nuclear especially. Hell of a lot better idea than the CARBON TAX!!#@#!@#@ solution.